Posted on 04/25/2005 2:29:34 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The anchors and reporters wear uniforms instead of neckties and suits, and the commercials promote the military, not laundry soap and cutlery sets. But otherwise, the Pentagon Channel - which is on the cusp of its first anniversary - looks and sounds a lot like CNN and C-SPAN.
To the people who run the Department of Defense television network, that's exactly the point. To critics, that's exactly the problem. When the government creates a cable channel that reminds viewers of a news network, down to the live Pentagon briefings and interviews with Washington big shots, is it a form of propaganda or just a savvy way to communicate with the troops?
"We provide news and information and focus on the morale of our military as well," says Allison Barber, deputy assistant secretary of Defense, who oversees the Pentagon Channel.
"We don't shy away from the tough stuff," she says, "but we embrace the stories that are uplifting and important for our morale."
For example, segments called "Why I Serve" spotlight members of the military and their stories, and a monthly show features military members and their families at Camp Pendleton, a Marine base near San Diego. "The American Veteran," meanwhile, highlights benefits and services for - you guessed it - veterans. Other shows spotlight individual branches of the military.
Not everything is happy news, however. In its daily news roundup, the Pentagon Channel's reporters and anchors cover fatal attacks and events such as the recent court-martial of an Army sergeant accused of carrying out an attack against fellow soldiers in Kuwait before the Iraq war. But the spin is invariably pro-military.
The on-air staffers "aren't reporters," says Ralph J. Begleiter, professor of communication at the University of Delaware. "That's a hugely important distinction. They're not journalists. They're salesmen."
Pentagon Channel senior producer Scott Howe, a veteran of military journalism, puts it another way. "We are an advocate of the Department of Defense and its voice," he says. "We obviously don't air speculation out in the civilian media that questions what the department is doing or its motives."
Military-sponsored news reports are hardly anything new. The government even operates an institution called the Defense Information School - motto: "strength through truth" - to train its troops to publish newspapers and produce news shows.
What makes the Pentagon Channel different is that the public is getting a look at it through cable systems, ostensibly so reservists and military families can watch it more easily.
The channel, which was launched last May, is broadcast at many military bases and on public cable in major cities. It also streams live on the Internet. There are no numbers on how many civilians may watch.
Most other Pentagon news services have limited, military-only audiences. The Stars & Stripes, the military's overseas daily newspaper, is available in the US via the Internet. (Once produced by service members, its staff is now mostly civilians.)
The Pentagon Channel "raises enormous questions," says Professor Begleiter, who is fighting the military over access to photos of flag-draped caskets of dead soldiers returning from abroad. "It's like any other government organization that puts out press releases or video releases or CD-ROMs or movies."
Ms. Barber bristles at the idea that the Pentagon Channel is offering government propaganda. To her, the network is simply offering a form of corporate communication. "You would never tell a CEO that they can't talk directly to their employees. That's just what we're doing with the Pentagon Channel."
The difference, critics say, is that the Pentagon is funded by taxpayer money - $6 million to start up the channel - and not stockholders.
Matthew T. Felling, media director at the watchdog group Center for Media and Public Affairs, wonders whether it's worth it.
"If the question is whether it's wiser for $6 million to [better arm] the troops or get them critical information, that's a tough call," he says. "But that's not the need that the Pentagon Channel is addressing. It isn't getting raw information to them. It's providing reassurance programming."
Don't you just love it?
This is a great channel! I particularly like the daily Pentagon briefings, and this channel is a great source of information regarding the ongoing military activities around the world.
I expect it will be a big hit.
DISH Network (satellite service) has it on an oddball satellite and requires a second dish to receive it. Enough viewers have expressed interest in it that it's hoped that DISH Network will move the channel to one of 2 of their main satellites so that it will get wide viewership.
This channel is free for services like cable and satellite companies to provide. The channel is funded by taxpayer dollars.
I think we all need to call and ask our providers how to get it.
Professor Scumbag forgot another hugely important distinction. He's not a professor. He's a left-wing activist.
Just tell them that you want the channel and they will provide it if enough subscribers inquire or ask for it! :) At least that's how DISH Network adds channels to their lineup.
He certainly did!
Thanks for the info. We have cable because of trees but - ***.........The channel, which was launched last May, is broadcast at many military bases and on public cable in major cities. It also streams live on the Internet. There are no numbers on how many civilians may watch.........***
Randy, you lost me when you grouped CNN and C-SPAN.
CNN, FOX and MSNBC are competitors. C-SPAN stands alone.
However, I want the Pentagon Channel.
DISH Network I believe started carrying this channel around the first of the year. By law, cable and satellite providers are mandated to carry "public interest" channels, of which this is one.
Good!
He also used to work at CNN, I believe.
Actually it is a fair comparison. It's newscasts are like those of 24-hour cable newscasts, with the production value and longform coverage of such events like the daily Pentagon briefings that make C-SPAN a valuable commodity on the TV dial.
The difference, critics say, is that the Pentagon is funded by taxpayer money - $6 million to start up the channel - and not stockholders.
The critics think that people who disagree with them shouldn't be heard.
Welcome to reality, fellas - it's human nature to feel that way. You just gotta learn to live with it.The real divide is the question of whether you claim to be wise or not. Censorship of your opponents is the logical implication of a claim of wisdom. The DoD isn't censoring CBS, but people with the same perspective as CBS are challenging the propriety of allowing the DoD to speak.
Recruiting is an indispensible part of the mission of the DoD. If the DoD TV channel helps do that, it is ipso facto a legitimate expense.
Media bias bump.
I should wait until I've seen. My point was that there is CNN, FOX and MSNBC. And then way over there by it's lonesome is a treasure called C-SPAN.
I should wait until I've seen it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.